GNLP2007

I feel this is a logical location for further limited development, being alongside the recent Eel Catcher Close development.

I think the proposed scale of the site is however disproportionate to the size and facilities available in the village.

Any development of the site should respect the linear nature of the village as did the development of Eel Catcher Close.

I've seen this village fill up with houses and has too many now to be honest.
Putting the distress it would cause myself and others I don't think the infrastructure would be sufficient, plus it'd put a greater burden on facilities and not wanting to bandy around words would probably increase risks of more crime.
These extra proposed sites would increase the problems I quoted in original site proposals

This site is of the correct size for the village. If developed in a similar style and mix as Eel catcher Way then I would be fully in favour.

I have visited your web-site, and having registered it seems difficult to ascertain a way to make an online comment. I have previously written about the initial two areas proposed, and this now encompasses the additional sites that have been submitted.

Therefore I want this to be considered as a response to the GNLP consultation; Re GNLP0165, GNLP0531, GNLP2063, GNLP2064,GNLP2061, GNLP2007, & GNLP2070

One is not surprised that there is demand and reasonable expectation for additional housing provision in this area, but there are concerns about the placement, and what might be developed. The style of housing may determine if these new development meet the real demand and aspiration of new property owners in the area.

At present as an outline there is presumably no guide view on the types, quality and affordability of the housing proposals.

Does the village infrastructure cope with a 50% + population increase; water supply, drains, power& telecommunications. Road widths and fotpaths for safe pedestrian movement? Bus services hardly operate to satisfy communting needs.

Regarding the suitability of the sites put forward for this consulatation;

A) GNLP0165. This is a small area of uneven topography, and the existing road system may become more dangerous depending on the placement of any estate access.
The roadway is heavily curved, already liable to flooding and depending on the point of access decided upon may require more footpath access to provide safe pedestrian travel to village amenities.
Buses already run wide round this corner, and an access road may have limited view of traffic proceeding along the road. It is outside the current 30mph limit.
Given the limited area, what can be economically developed? Consider this an objection with present knowledge.

B) GNLP0531. At the Eastern end of the village, I have less knowledge but does this area lie in a "floodplain"? It certainly seems at a lower level, and close to the staithe.
It is quite some distance from the Surgery and Post Office/store, so is the footpath provision adequate for increased traffic and the fact the roadway is narrow for buses and agricultural tractors.
One is always concerned about the style of development and housing provision. Thinking of the other recent development proposal in RSM, the estate road seemed inadequate and partly "unadopted".

C) GNLP2063, 2064, 2061, 2007. These small developments closer to the village centre surely should be considered together. Will the roadways accessing these be adopted, concerns as to the property types likely to be developed, and the impact of increased housing upon servicves. "Unadopted" roads lead to hidden housing costs in leasehold arrangements, and I believe properties shoud be available "freehold" and without future charging options open to developers.

D) GNLP2070. Another piece of land without access to anywhere without road transport; footpaths, where? No Village amenities. Anglian Water always seem to have trouble in the Bramerton area. So do adequate infrastructure facilities exist. School access.

With all this supposed extra housing, what is the capacity of the school, not just the Primary School in Rockalnd St Mary, but whether with all the catchment area of secondary education Framingham, is that then overstretched?

Finally, If there is to be substantial development at any of the above locations, the road system from our outlying villages should be considered for an upgrade.

At present the roadway is narrow enough to be problematic with school buses and commercial vehicles at some pinch points (approach to Bramerton, is just one place). There is no footpath, and GNLP2070 definitely would deserve that sort of access.

As more people find the main Loddon road busier, there is already increased road traffic along our alternative road.

Consider this a comment, but with considerable scepticism, as to Norwich & Norfolk's planning capability to use this area effectively and without detriment to existing people.

Overall /Whole GNLP Plans. Surely housing alone is insufficient; the better way to ensure viability of this region is also to plan for new business parks, and employment areas. Most of Norfolk's road structure is grid-locked daily, and unsafe junctions abound on many radial roads. The infrastructure requirements need to be determined too.

The development of Rockland St Mary is extremely disappointing as a resident. It is about building the right homes, at the right places. These are not necessary, and would impact greatly on the village.

With this development, there would be:

Substantial loss of natural habitat for wildlife on the surrounding area.

Substantial loss of natural habitat for animals in and around the broads area

Massive increase in traffic on a national cycling route, which has already had death and injury on this road. It stands to reason that extra cars would cause an increase in injury/death.

Traffic increase in general - coming out onto 'The Street' when cars are all parked on the road already, will be blind spots all over the road, with the potential for serious accidents, particularly with cyclists. Many children walk to school too, which would have to 'cross' these new developments. Visibility of coming out onto this road is a major issue.

Surface water - would be huge drainage issues for a development on this size. This can impact on the existing properties.

Construction traffic - the roads in and around Rockland St Mary cannot take large trucks now! These large developments would cause all sorts of issues getting out of the village and onto the A146. The Street is not designed for large vehicles.

The proposed access point is also not big enough for large vehicles - which again would cause issues with them getting onto 'The Street'. If cars are parked already on 'The Street', they wouldn't be able to turn out.

The other concern is the fields do inter-connect. Like how the development has gone on Bee-orchid way, there is a danger of 'Urban Sprawl', that once one development is signed off, the next one will only be a matter of time. If one is signed off, that sets a precedent for the next one. As Bee-Orchid way has shown, another 20 houses have just been added. Does the village really want to become like Poringland and Brooke? The village boundary is designed to prevent urban sprawl, and all the negative costs effected with it.

General - site boundaries are there for a reason. Just because there is space, why does it need housing? Norfolk as a whole has many spaces to develop, but it's about choosing the correct spaces, like around the new Norwich bypass. These developments massively impact the village and local life, and should be objected at the highest level. It is fundamentally changing the village, and potentially doubling the size of it overnight. The village will become unsafe due to the volume of cars and traffic, more polluted, and have less wildlife in and around the broads. How can this be suitable for an area which is a stone's throw away from a national park?

The call for sites is that - a call for sites. This is simply a land grab for local developers, who see rightly an opportunity, but it is utterly inappropriate for this village.

Proximity to Rockland Broad. Further impact on wildlife and the natural habitat.
Increase in traffic volume through The Street.
Road infrastructure cannot cope with more traffic.
The top of New Inn Hill is very dangerous and any further housing would increase the risk of an accident whether car driver, cyclist or walker.
The village has limited daytime public transport. Few employment opportunities locally mean residents have to travel to work on small roads, ill-equipped for the increase in traffic.
The pavement in this area is very narrow and dangerous for pedestrians.
Further drain on local services ie: GP.

When Eel Catcher Close was being considered, under a special local housing need exception to planning rules, Norfolk County Council Highways had concerns with siting distances to the bend at the intersection of New Inn Hill and the Street from the access road. My recollection is they were reluctant to approve and only did so on the understanding that the access road to Eel catcher close would not be used for any further development. Any further access on this stretch of road would be dangerous and a further erosion of siting distances to access / egress routes for new developments. A representative of South Norfolk Council came to a public planning meeting and gave categorical assurances that granting planning permission for Eel Catcher Close would not lead to the proposed land being built on at a later date. Wildlife has been attracted to the land at the rear by that land owners environmental schemes and any further development would have a detrimental effect on ecology and the rich Broads wildlife that occupies the wider area

When considering the 7 sites in Rockland St Mary, although marginally interested in one, I have tried to forecast the effect the total developments will have on the village. The authorities will say that all the developments are over a number of years and will not give details of the likely order.
So I have made a number of assumptions, namely that - Water, Gas, Electricity, Telephones, Drainage, Schooling, Medical Care, Internet Availability, Rubbish Collections have all been consulted and they have said they can provide guaranteed service.
This leaves probably the biggest problem, the Roads. Again assumptions, that each 10 new houses will probably have at least 10 cars, if not 15 to 20 and more when families grow up to driving age. I have seen Pages 97 and 345 of some report and if sites GNLP 2007, 2061, 2063, 2064 add up to some 90 dwellings plus the 200 houses at the New Inn Hill site then I forecast that there will be an additional 450 cars using The Street twice a day at least. This does not take into account the number of vans, lorries and and delivery vans from Supermarkets. The site " South of the Street Conclusions " does not, in my view, give an objective view as it makes no reference to the problem likely to arise when GNLP 2063 goes ahead and some 50 cars are wanting on to The Street in the morning peak time mainly going into Norwich and there are cars and Delivery vans parked in The Street at the Shop and Post Office. I am not forgetting the vehicles coming up the road from the New Inn site direction. I do not see how the "Impacts Analysis" can give a Green for Transport and Roads unless alterations to our roads are planned but have not been made Public yet.
There was an Opinion article in the EDP on Monday 19th November 2018 that our " Roads must be able to cope with more and more vehicles " - copy enclosed. The road problem is not only a Rockland St Mary problem but the large developments in Poringland, Framlingham Earl , Loddon and in many other villages it will only get worse. Road congestion is already here but access to Norwich is bound to get worse with all the Developments proposed unless some are delayed until the major roads are improved.
I am far from confident that the current facilities will be able to cope with the possible expansion envisaged in the next few years.

A. Local Development Scheme for South Norfolk 2017-18 Revised December 2017 https://www.south-norfolk.gov.uk/sites/default/files/downloads/lds_december_2017_update_adopted_december_2017.pdf
B. Development Management Policies Document https://www.south-norfolk.gov.uk/sites/default/files/Development_Management_Policies_Document_0.pdf
C. Norfolk County Council: Safe, Sustainable Development Aims and Guidance notes for Local Highway Authority requirements in Development Management (revised November 2015) https://www.norfolk.gov.uk/rubbish-recycling-and-planning/planning-applications/highway-guidance-for-development/publications
D. Greater Norwich Plan - Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessment (HELAA) Addendum October 2018 http://www.gnlp.org.uk/assets/Uploads/HELAA-addendum-2018-final.pdf
E. South Norfolk Place-Making Guide Supplementary Planning Document September 2012 - https://www.south-norfolk.gov.uk/sites/default/files/South_Norfolk_Place-Making_Guide_SPD_0.pdf
F. South Norfolk District Council Site Specific Allocations and Policies Document (effective 26 October 2015 and covers the period up to 2026) https://www.south-norfolk.gov.uk/residents/planning/planning-policy/adopted-south-norfolk-local-plan/site-specific-allocations-and
G. Human Rights Act 19998, Article 8 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/schedule/1/part/I/chapter/7

Comments and Objection to Greater Norwich Local Plan (GNLP) Regulation 18 - New, revised and small sites (2018): GNLP Ref; 2061

Dear Sir or Madam,

We wish to make you aware of a number of strong objections that we have with regard to the proposed development of additional properties beyond the settlement boundaries of Rockland St Mary as set out in the subject Regulation (Call for sites), in particular the proposed site GNLP 2061 and in general the other 4 sites at GNLPs; 2007, 2063, 2064 & 2070. As residents of Rockland St Mary we are of the view that the proposed development will have a serious impact on residents standard of living and wellbeing. Our specific objections are as follows:

1. NON-COMPLIANCE WITH LOCAL PLAN POLICIES. We strongly feel that the proposed access route to/from the site at GNLP2061 will present a significant safety hazard to road users. In particular with regard to the guidelines laid out in Reference C, "Development must have safe vehicular and (where appropriate), pedestrian, cycle, equestrian links to a public highway. New accesses and junctions, (or existing accesses and junctions subject to a material change in traffic or use) must (in terms of geometric layout, visibility and construction) be safe. Importance is placed not only on those using the access, but also on the safety of road users passing the site". Further detail to highlight this point as follows:

a. The proposed access road to GNLP 2061 directly abuts the property at XXX The Street. This property was built circa 1850 (prior to the invention of the motor vehicle) and access to the highway is dangerous due to the very restricted lines of sight to the highway.

b. As defined in Reference C, "New accesses and junctions, (or existing accesses and junctions subject to a material change in traffic or use) must (in terms of geometric layout, visibility and construction) be safe. Importance is placed not only on those using the access, but also on the safety of road users passing the site." A new access point adjacent to XXX The Street would not be safe and it would significantly increase the danger to all road users using that particular section of The Street.

c. The difficulty currently experienced in exiting our property at XXX The Street is such that, because of the very restricted lines of sight we cannot physically see any oncoming traffic going from right to left until the front of our vehicle is almost on the centre line of the highway. We have to rely on winding down both windows to listen for any oncoming motor traffic (the situation with non-motor traffic such as pedestrians, cyclists etc heightens the danger even further) and then exit at a very slow pace.

d. Numerous times we have experienced near misses or irate reactions from other road users who travel through the village at speed. We tried to improve the line of sight to the right about 6 years ago when we landscaped the front of the property by replacing a section of fencing beside the exit and "kicking-back" the new fence at an angle but the line of sight benefit has been negligible.

e. It should also be noted by the planners that when considering this access point that consideration is given to section G 2.2 of Reference C in that "The eye line of drivers can vary from 1.05m above the carriageway in a standard car to approximately 2m in commercial vehicles. For drivers to see and be seen by pedestrians and wheel chair users, unobstructed visibility is required to a point 0.6m above ground level. To enable drivers to see other drivers and road users across summits; around bends; and at junctions; unobstructed visibility is required between the height range 0.6m to 2m". The line of sight from the proposed access to GNLP 2061 is blocked by a solid brick wall that borders the property at XXX The Street which is 1.4m high and runs directly up to and meets the footpath thereby affording road users wishing to exit the new access point even more limited visibility to the highway due to non-existent splay to the highway and extremely poor line of sight visibility making it extremely dangerous to all road users.

f. Further to this when two road users are trying to exit both the property at XXX The Street and another road user from the access to GNLP 2061, then inevitably this will result in a further increase in danger and chance of a collision.

g. Please note the following photographs that illustrates the difficulty in exiting the entrance of XXX The Street adjacent to the entrance to proposed site at GNLP 2061:

Figure 1: Drivers line of sight view when front of vehicle is right up to the edge of the footpath (facing West). N.B. The close proximity of the entrance to XX The Street opposite and, to the left of the wooden fence, the driveway to XX The Street (partially obscured).

Figure 2. Minimum distance the vehicle has to move on to the highway to obtain a safe line of sight when exiting XXX The Street (almost to the centre line of the highway).

Figure 3. Drivers view (west) from vehicle at position shown in Figure 2.
h. Given that the exit from XXX The Street has poor lines of sight particularly to the right where it exits directly in to oncoming traffic, it can be strongly argued that by adding in an additional access to the highway directly adjacent to, it would greatly exacerbate the problem and be unsafe for all road users.

i. Notwithstanding the additional entrance to the proposed site at GNLP 2061 the existing problem is compounded by the close proximity of the two entrances to the properties opposite (XX & XX) and the low-setting sun in the winter months that shines directly down the street which causes even greater reduction in ability to see oncoming traffic which in turn, makes this an extremely dangerous place to position an access point let alone one that would service 25 properties and all the additional traffic that would use the new access. The proposed developments are out of scale with the character of the settlement and are unacceptable and will create conflicts between pedestrians, cyclists and vehicular movements thereby creating a safety hazard.

j. It should be noted that on page 341 of Reference D - The site suitability conclusions for Rockland St Mary GNLP 2061 of the Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessment (HELAA) Addendum October 2018 were that "Access to the site, via what is a narrow field access, from the Street is likely to be difficult. The access is approximately eight metres wide and continues for at least 40 metres before widening to what is a 'backland' site. Initial Highways Authority evidence has indicated concerns about whether an access could be achieved, but as mitigations may be possible it is not categorically ruled out for the purposes of the HELAA". It is not apparently evident at all that any mitigation whatsoever could be effected to physically improve the line of site in such a manner as to make access safe for all road users. This therefore would be a dangerous access point, which would not comply with the specific detailed guidelines namely; G2.1, G2.2 and G2.3 laid out in Reference C concerning Norfolk County Council's Highway Access Standards.

2. DETRIMENTAL AFFECT ON THE TOWNSCAPE. The Rockland St Mary Settlement Policy Document Contained in Reference F clearly states as follows: "The village is set on the Yare Valley, and consequently in close proximity to the Broads, with a smaller tributary valley to the south, which together with good views from within the built-up area of the surrounding landscape and the good tree and hedge planting throughout, give the village a pleasant rural character". We feel strongly that the development GLNP 2061 will be detrimental to this and will not "enhance the pleasant rural character".

a. Development of the village is concentrated along The Street with a small detached cluster of development at Rockland Staithe to the east of the village, and an isolated group of houses to the west at The Oaks, Bramerton Lane. A small number of individual dwellings and farmsteads are widely dispersed throughout the remainder of the parish. The village has developed a linear settlement form based along Rookery Hill and The Street. It has experienced some limited estate development, particularly at the eastern end of the village adjacent to Surlingham Lane together with some infill development.

b. The siting of developments behind the land along the street to the North and South would drastically negatively affect the character of the village and set a precedent for future potential developments, which would further erode the character and charm from the village that has seen very little substantial change over the years.

c. Further non-linear development would be to the detriment of the majority of residents and would lead to "town-cramming" through an increase in residences but scant improvement in local amenities due to the constraints of poor public transport links and the existing transport infrastructure not being conducive to sustainable transport. This would have a detrimental effect of the wellbeing of both the immediate and the wider surrounding communities.

3. LOSS OF PRIVACY AND OVERLOOKING. It is stated at in Reference E, The South Norfolk Place Making Guide that "Where a block of development is proposed to include new housing and other uses, for instance in a new local centre, then careful design is required to provide residents with privacy and security". The proposed site of development at GNLP 2061 is at such that the primary amenity area of our garden containing a summer house and a raised terrace seating area, would be severely overlooked from the top rooms of the new development, resulting in a serious invasion of our privacy and we would ask that the planners consider the following.

a. The location of the proposed development GNLP 2061 does not afford adequate privacy for the occupants of the building or of adjacent existing residential properties, particularly with regard to their right to the quiet enjoyment of garden amenities and would impact severely on the existing privacy that existing residents have. We would urge you to consider the responsibilities of the council under the Human Rights Act as defined in Reference G, in particular Protocol 1, Article 1 which states that 'a person has the right to peaceful enjoyment of all their possessions which includes the home and other land".

b. We believe that the proposed development would have a dominating impact on existing residents and our right to the quiet enjoyment of our property. Article 8 of the Human Rights Act states that a person has the substantive right to respect for their private and family life.

c. In the case of Britton vs SOS, the courts reappraised the purpose of the law and concluded that the protection of the countryside falls within the interests of Article 8. Private and family life therefore encompasses not only the home but also the surroundings.

4. GROUND STABILITY AND TREE PRESERVATION. We have serious concerns about the impact the proposed works could have on the stability of our property. The farm track adjacent to XXX the street is a brick built construction and is approximately 150 years old and the property and boundary wall will run along the new access road. Given the age of the building the foundations, if indeed there are any, will be such that the construction of a new access road will have a detrimental affect on the fabric of the property. Any excavation work could have a serious adverse impact upon the stability of the existing structure. We also have concerns over the impact any construction would have on a large mature Walnut Tree that is on the edge of our property beside the farm track. Furthermore, we would ask that the following points be taken into consideration.

a. Major construction work would be necessary directly next to our home to convert the farm track adjoining our circa-1850s property and construct an access road. We have serious concerns about the impact that such works, including excavations directly next to our home, would have on the stability of the property.

b. Further to this, there is a large (approx. 30m) mature Walnut Tree that stands close to the proposed access approximately 20 metres down the Farm Track. The base of this tree is sited less than 2 metres from where the proposed access road would be constructed. Owls use this tree every year for nesting and it also sustains squirrels and other wildlife. A Tree Preservation Order has been submitted to Norfolk County Council.

c. Excavations and ground works that heavy excavation equipment would cause and the extent of excavation for the development would have on the root system of the tree could lead to the loss of the tree. Notwithstanding this, if any roots survived the excavation, or a new root system regenerated, they would reach beneath the proposed access road, therefore we also have concerns about the effect that the roots could have on the foundations of the access road in the future and requests to remove the tree that might stem from this. One of the council's broad aims set out in the Local Plan is to protect or enhance the local environment including wildlife habitats, trees and woodland. The area concerned is also a wildlife haven for many birds and animals and adds significantly to the amenity of the area.

5. DETRIMENTAL IMPACT UPON THE LOCAL ENVIRONMENT. Rockland St Mary is a linear village that is characterised in the main by detached and semi detached properties that run along either side of the main street which look out onto open fields, marshes and woodlands in an area that directly borders the Broads Authority Area that has similar status to the national parks in England and Wales and the areas of land to the North and South of "The Street" in Rockland St Mary both serve as vital "Wildlife Corridors" that are used by all manner of wildlife which mitigates the harm to the environment caused by Eutrophication from Farming and Sewage. The Broads are Britain's largest protected wetland and are home to a wealth of birdlife. Amongst the species seen are mallard, coot, moorhen, great crested grebe, greylag goose, Canada goose, Egyptian goose, grey heron, marsh harrier, cormorant, kestrel, sparrow hawk and bittern. The habitat surrounding the settlement area of Rockland St Mary is home as well to numerous deer that would be impacted by this development. Ecological constraints relate to the GNLP 2061 site's proximity to habitats in the Broads. The site is 200 metres from the Broads Authority administrative area and within the 3,000 metre buffer distance to SAC (Special Area of Conservation), SPA (Special Protection Area), SSSI (Sites of Special Scientific Importance), Ramsar and National Nature Reserve designations. Any new development of such scale would also negatively impact the environment with regard to increases in noise and light pollution, which would have a detrimental effect on the wellbeing of the existing community

6. IMPACT UPON RESIDENTIAL AMENITIES. The impact of an increase in population would have positive and negative effects on the amenities that serve the settlement. There would be benefits in greater footfall to private businesses that currently serve the village, which would potentially improve the life of residents through small gains in employment and other associated benefits such as enhanced provisions of service.

a. The amenities are limited however, for example the existing medical practice (part of the Heathgate Surgery Practice) operates on a restricted part-time basis (3 days a week) with the provision for cover outside of these times being served by practices located in Poringland, Loddon and beyond.

b. An increase in population would therefore serve to an increase in travel to and from the village, largely in motor vehicles. The nearest supermarkets are 6 miles distant so an increase in population would lead to an increase in motor vehicle traffic through the village either by residents or delivery vans.

c. The settlement has a range of social and community facilities including a primary school, post office, shop, doctors surgery and village hall. Other amenities such as secondary/further education are located in Framingham Earl or Norwich in the main as well as other amenities needed by the village such as dental practices, pharmacies, supermarkets etc. Again this would lead to a marked increase in motor vehicle traffic through the village.

d. Employment opportunities within the settlement are relatively scarce and most residents of working age predominantly work away from the village in the city of Norwich and surrounding service towns, again adding increased load to the traffic flow.

7. IMPACT FROM OVERFLOW TRAFFIC FROM A146 CONGESTION. The village of Rockland St Mary is becoming increasingly impacted by the overflow traffic that re-routes to and from Norwich along the A146 in order to avoid lengthy delays caused both by difficulties in access the highway due to sheer volumes of traffic at peak periods to delays in journey time due to the slow average moving speed of traffic at peak periods. Drivers are increasingly using the route through the surrounding villages including; Langley, Claxton, Rockland St Mary, Bramerton and Kirby Bedon to gain easier access to and from Norwich. The change in routing for a large number of Mini Buses from using the A146 to cutting through Rockland St Mary and the surrounding villages is testament to this. Further to this, the Street in Rockland St Mary has become "dominated" by the motor vehicle and has ceased to become a shared space for the community for all to use safely. Consideration should be given with regard to the following:

a. As the road has become more dominated by motor vehicles, we see fewer children cycling/walking from their homes to the local Primary School with many parents driving to a point near the junction at School Lane where they can safely and easily walk their children to school. Congestion at this junction and inconsiderate parking are commonplace. The addition of a proposed 25 further homes at GNLP 2061 will exacerbate the problem to the detriment of the community, which will be compounded yet further by granting planning permission to the other additional proposed sites at GNLPs; 2007, 2063, 2064 & 2070.

9. IMPACT ON SUSTRANS NATIONAL CYCLE ROUTE 1. Rockland St Mary forms part of Sustrans National Route which enters the village along Surlingham Lane and routes along The Street and through past the New Inn out of the village through the neighbouring villages of Claxton, Langley, Chedgrave, Loddon and beyond. Siting more residential developments in Rockland St Mary will inevitably lead to an increase in Motor Vehicle use which will deter people from using sustainable forms of transport such as the bicycle due to the increase in perceived danger people have as they see our roads get busier. The existing road infrastructure is not suited to creating cycle paths that are physically separated from motor vehicle traffic so this will only deter people from getting out of motor vehicle transport and on to sustainable forms of transport such as the bicycle. This has wider reaching negative effects on people's mental and physical health as well as their wellbeing and also has a negative impact on the environment.

10. SUMMARY. In summary, Rockland St Mary is a settlement of some approximately 325 homes (2001 census) which has seen the addition of the development at Eel Catcher close and a further development of 21 homes currently being constructed behind Bee Orchid Way. Together these two developments will provide an increase of approximately 10% of dwellings in the settlement which I believe is wholly appropriate. Any further increase will drastically alter the character of the village and over-burden the few existing amenities it has. We would be grateful if the council would take our objections into consideration when deciding this application. We would welcome the opportunity to meet with a representative of the planning department at our home to illustrate our objections at first hand. In closing, we object to the five proposed applications in the GNLP call for sites for Rockland St Mary as follows:

a. GNLP 2061. We STRONGLY OBJECT to the proposed application for backfield site for development located at GNLP 2061 for all of the aforementioned reasons cited in paragraphs 1-9 (incl) of this letter.
b. GNLPs 2063 & 2064. We OBJECT to the proposed applications for backfield sites for reasons cited in Paragraphs: 2, 3, 5, 7 & 9 above.
c. GNLPs 2007 & 2071 We OBJECT to the to the proposed application for site for development for the reasons cited in Paragraphs: 2, 5, 6, 7 above.

As a resident of Rockland St Mary, at xxxxxxxxx, and as part of the Public Consultation, I would like to make clear the reasons for my opposition to all 7 of the sites put forward.

1. Given the linear plan of the village and the unlikelyhood/impossibility of major highway restructuring, all seven sites present problems in safely pulling out into Rookery Hill, The Street, New Inn Hill and Low Road etc.
In particular:-
GNLP0165 is a sloping site on a sharp bend
GNLP2063 and GNLP2064 would increase the traffic confusion and congestion already evident because access to the shop and Doctors' Surgery are nearly opposite each other.
GNLP2061 is behind the house opposite mine. Farm vehicles using the field entrance between nos. 101 and 103 are prone to partially mount the bank which borders the road in front of my property, as they turn in or out, and have been known to tear a considerable branch off a tree on the boundary of 103 and drive along The Street with it until it got caught in some overhead wires. You would not be able to see much either way when pulling out into The Street without cutting off the corners of the front gardens of both 101 and 103.

2. What happened to the concept of 'Prime Agricultural Land'? All these proposed sites violate that principle and GNLP0531 is a monstrous example: another village between Rockland and Claxton. (And a shooting estate appears to be being established just behind this!)

3. Increased traffic/lack of adequate services in, and to and from, Rockland St Mary.
Nearly all the residents in these proposed residential properties would need cars to get to work in Norwich or further afield. A school bus may remain in operation for their children - or they may end up driving them to school. Especially if we lose our already only just adequate bus service.
We already have a convoy of mini-buses through our village on weekday afternoons because they cannot get out onto the A146 turning right towards Norwich.
Increased population with more cars and more needs will, inevitably, either drive to Norwich or elsewhere to go shopping or order on line generating more supermarket delivery vans and couriers looking for a number in The Street which, on examination, turns out to be in Poringland!

4. Rockland St Mary Street is on a natural ridge, as you can see if you walk away from it in either direction. It is not a picture postcard village clustered round a green or common but it functions pretty well socially, as well as being built on land from which water can drain away adequately.

To add the proposed number of residences, with their occupants and vehicles, would entirely change the character of the place, turning it suburban. Most of us in Rockland really appreciate our rather more rural surroundings.

Inadequate amenities (limited healthcare, no secondary/further education facilities) in local area will inevitably lead to rise on motor vehicle use on an already country road that has seen increased use by drivers wishing to avoid A140. This road is also subject to partial or complete flooding at numerous points between Loddon and Bixley presenting additional hazards to road users. Increase in dwellings would lead to greater danger to vulnerable road users and is on Sustrans National Cycling Route 1 Development outside of the settlement boundary so should be REFUSED.

I support this site as it keeps with the liner nature of the Rockland St Mary and I feel that it is an appropriate size for the village.

I don't believe that access would be an issue as it would be about the same as Eel Catcher Close. The new development could even be joined onto Eel Catcher Close.

I OBJECT to this development because it is OUTSIDE the Village settlement boundary and is sited within 200 metres from the Broads Authority administrative area and within the 3000-meter buffer-zone that protects the fringes of the SAC, SPA, SSSI, Ramsar and National Nature Reserve designations.

Further development here will dramatically negatively affect the townscape and do NOTHING to PROTECT the fragile environment, nor recognise the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside and support the thriving rural community within Rockland St Mary. The road is already unsafe for vulnerable road users; the last thing needed is more motor vehicle traffic.

1. Outside development boundary! I own a more suitable plot on Green Lane and have been consistently refused even consideration of a planning application as the plot is outside the development boundary!! Are we looking at one rule for one and something different for anyone else?!!!
2. Road and infrastructure is totally inadequate to support any further development in this village
3. Same objections apply to all the present proposals.

Site would destroy one of the few open spaces on the main road through the village. It would create a block of houses on the far end of the village which is already over a mile long and make a continuous housing block where the horizon isn't visible. The drainage would cause overspill as it is on the top of a hill and nearby properties would get the flooding. The village cannot cope with any more housing as the road is almost impassable in the morning rush hour. The access for traffic would be very dangerous as it is on the top of a hill and on a bend .

terrible access right at the top of a hill and on a bend where fast traffic always moving. site would ruin lovely view over feilds from road - one of the only views of the open sky for a couple of miles in the village. would hugely restrict local footpath which would then run along a wall. Awful, ugly plan to over build on small village.

I object to this proposed site on the grounds of the additional traffic that will need to pass through the village. All residents at this site would need to drive through the only road that leads through the centre of the village and out of the village to reach the A146 and Norwich. As this road is also the route many children in the village take to the local school take to walk to school and there is pavement on only one side of the road (which is narrow in places), additional traffic will make it even more dangerous for children walking to school. On these grounds I would only be in favour of new houses at the Bramerton end of the village, as these residents would have minimum impact on traffic levels through the village and keep our village safe for children and pedestrians.

This works if the development stops at 15 homes. If it grows bigger than that it will lead to extra traffic running through the heart of the village and ruining the character. Large development is best located at the Bramerton end of the village as traffic to and from Norwich will not clog up the Street which is already getting dangerous due to the number of parked cars on the road and busy traffic.

Only pleasant open skyline in the whole village will be obliterated. Dangerous point for access on top of hill and bend with fast traffic. Overcrowded end of the village as it is, as another block of houses being placed on opposite side of the road. Destroying lovely part of the village where footpath runs.

Site is outside development boundary and close to Broad conservation area and areas of SSI. Entrance/exit at top of blind hill and bend in road. Big increase in traffic coming from Loddon since new developments there putting pressure on single road through village and a danger to cyclists using a popular national cycling route. Site is next to public right of way used by ramblers and dog walkers and an exit point for large agricultural vehicles. Being at the top of the hill any development would be seen from a distance and spoil the natural beauty of the countryside.

GNLP2007 - OBJECT

Over-development of the village. Rockland St. Mary is classed as a Service Village with limited facilities.
No safe vehicular access to the proposed area, being onto a narrow road and on the brow of a hill.
Substantial increase in traffic from residents' vehicles on a daily basis which would have to travel through The Street to access the main road to Norwich which itself is narrow, often floods and is
entirely unsuitable for more vehicles.
Danger to pedestrians from increase in traffic volume to and from the site.
Narrow pavement makes it unsafe for pedestrians with cars and lorries passing too close.
Limited public transport in Rockland St. Mary, no train line nearby, a day time bus service dependent on continued subsidies from Norfolk County Council.
Loss of enjoyment of the environment for existing residents, and the many walkers and tourists who enjoy the nearby river, footpaths and Rockland Broad.

GNLP2061 - OBJECT

Over-development of a linear village. This would be backfill.
Access directly onto The Street, which cannot cope with any extra traffic and would be a danger to pedestrians and cyclists. The Street has numerous cars parked along its length and any further hazard such as turning or exiting a backfill site would cause accidents. Only last week there was a car accident on The Street in School commuter time.
Substantial increase in traffic from residents' vehicles on a daily basis which would have to travel through The Street to access the main road to Norwich which itself is narrow, often floods and is
entirely unsuitable for more vehicles.
Danger to pedestrians from increase in traffic volume to and from the site. There is only a narrow pavement on one side of The Street.
Limited public transport in Rockland St. Mary, no train line nearby, a limited day time bus service dependent on continued subsidies from Norfolk County Council.
Impact on the environment and existing residents of the village.
We have 21 new homes under construction and until these are occupied it is impossible to assess the effect of this on residents and local services.

GNLP2063 - OBJECT

Over-development of a linear village. This would be backfill.
Access directly onto The Street, which cannot cope with any extra traffic and would be a danger to pedestrians and cyclists. The Street has numerous cars parked along its length and any further hazard such as turning or exiting a backfill site would cause accidents. Only last week there was a car accident on The Street in School commuter time.
Substantial increase in traffic from residents' vehicles on a daily basis which would have to travel through The Street to access the main road to Norwich which itself is narrow, often floods and is
entirely unsuitable for more vehicles.
Danger to pedestrians from increase in traffic volume to and from the site. We have a narrow pavement on one side of The Street.
Limited public transport in Rockland St. Mary, no train line nearby, a limited day time bus service dependent on continued subsidies from Norfolk County Council.
Impact on the environment and existing residents of the village.
We have 21 new homes under construction and until these are occupied it is impossible to assess the effect of this on residents and local services.

GNLP2064 - OBJECT

Over-development of a linear village. This would be backfill.
Access directly onto The Street, which cannot cope with any extra traffic. This area is heavily used with cars going to and from the GP Surgery and parked around The Shop/Post Office/Cafe. It would be completely unsuitable and a serious accident blackspot on The Street. Not to mention the hazard to pedestrians and/or cyclists accessing the Surgery or Shop.
Substantial increase in traffic from residents' vehicles together with service and delivery vehicles on a daily basis which would mainly access the road to Norwich which itself is narrow, often floods and is
entirely unsuitable for more vehicle
Limited public transport in Rockland St. Mary, no train line nearby, a limited day time bus service dependent on continued subsidies from Norfolk County Council.
Impact on the environment and existing residents of the village.
We have 21 new homes under construction and until these are occupied it is impossible to assess the effect of this on residents and local services.

GNLP - 2070

No comments.

The site access at the top of New Inn Hill has poor visibility and with the speed and volume of traffic at that point would make it very dangerous.

The Street is already under pressure from high traffic volumes which are increasing as the village is now used as a rat run by Loddon and Chedgrave to avoid congestion on the A146. Even more traffic will be generated from the 21 new houses currently being built at Bee Orchid Way. The hazard of traffic on The Street was demonstrated last week when there was a two car collision outside the entrance to Black Horse Dyke carpark which resulted in one of the vehicles crashing into and demolishing a large part of our 200 year old garden wall.

The road from Rockland St Mary to Kirby Bedon is unsuitable for any increased traffic movements. It frequently floods at the bottom of Rookery Hill and there are four tight bends and other dangerous blind spots. There is a pinch point on the road between The Oaks and Bramerton Street where it narrows significantly in one place so that any wide vehicle (lorry, bus, farm machinery) has to stop and pull over or reverse to allow any oncoming vehicle to pass (or vice versa).

The proposed site will have a negative visual impact and spoil the outlook onto open countryside. The scale of the development is unsuitable for the village and will impair it's rural character.

The site will have an adverse ecological and environmental impact given it's close proximity to habitats in the Broads. The site is within the 3,000 metre buffer distance to SAC (Special Area of Conservation), SPA (Special Protection Area), SSSI (Sites of Special Scientific Importance), Ramsar and National Nature Reserve designations.

Site reference: GNLP2007
I write further to the Council's consultation with respect to the Joint Local Plan and in particular to the above site.
On behalf of our client we welcome and whole heartedly support the Council's decision and consideration that the site represents a suitable site for future residential development as identified within the Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessment (HELAA). To supplement this though and address some of the points raised in the site appraisal we would wish to make the following comments.
Suitability
We would reiterate that the site is suitable for residential development being located adjacent to the village boundary and to recent residential development. As set out in the earlier representations made in support of the site there are no access issues with this site when considered against other sites submitted in Rockland St Mary and the proposals would be sympathetic with the ribbon pattern of development defining the village and avoid insensitive back land development.

With regards to the comments in the HELAA assessment with respect to potential ecological constraints we note that the site sits immediately adjacent to a modern residential development of 10 dwellings, granted permission in 2009 under reference 2009/0254. Whilst a very similar distance to the Broads and its associated protected wildlife sites, of a similar scale and characteristics of use these were not a constraint on development of this adjacent site. Therefore, the wildlife sites within the Broads would not be a constraint on a development of the site with the size and scale indicated.
Furthermore, there are no other insurmountable technical constraints to the sites development. Therefore, the site represents a very suitable site for development to be included in the emerging plan.
Availability
The site is available and owned by our client and there are no known legal restrictions to bringing the site forward in the short term and indeed that would prevent an immediate delivery of new homes.

Achievability
It is noted that the HELAA assessment of the site indicates a yield of approximately 15 dwellings. This is based on recent planning permission 2018/0254 for 10 dwellings on the adjacent site and therefore provides a realistic and achievable figure for this slightly larger site.
Summary
The applicant welcomes the Council's decision that the site represents a suitable site for future residential development. We would stress that the proposals put forward in contrast to recent speculative applications and individual piecemeal development represents an opportunity to help deliver a plan-led future for the village and local community. One that addresses the specific existing and future needs of the village in a sensitive manner that respects the character and appearance of the village and is proportionate to the size of the village and facilities available.

We would therefore welcome your support for the inclusion of the above site and your consideration of the indicative scheme and masterplan attached.

- proposal does not support the traditional image and character of a idyllic Norfolk village
- what population data supports the proposed increase in housing
- local doctors surgery could not support such an increase in the population of the village]
- local schools have limited capacity and could not support increase in population
- public transport is in adequate
- on a steep hill with limited vision for traffic
- applicants would appear to be profiteering and have no vested interest in the village

Site ref 2007 (next to Eel Catcher Close)
The site lies outside the development boundary and to the edge of the eastern side of the village. The site is at the brow of a hill where site lines are restricted. A request for planning permission to erect a house on the land opposite was refused in 2017 due to the dangers of entry onto the road. The road is part of a national cycle route, heavily used by cyclists each day. It is also much used by ramblers and local walkers who access the public right of way next to the site. Data from the Parish Council's SAM2 monitor shows a high volume of traffic passes the site particularly between 6 am and 9.30am and 3.30 and 7pm each day, with speeding an additional problem as drivers leave or enter the village at this point.
Residents have expressed the view that the ongoing housing development at Bee Orchid Way should be sufficient to provide a 'share' towards the extra housing required by the GNLP.
The Parish Council's other major concern with this site is its proximity to the Staithe and Broad. At present the site and the neighbouring field act as a 'buffer' between the small exceptions site at Eel Catcher Close and the existing properties set back from the road on New Inn Hill. The site is very close to a tourist attraction for bird watchers, boat users, ramblers and fishing. The popularity for both villagers and visitors to this end of the village lie in its very unspoilt, natural and tranquil qualities.
The Parish Council remains very concerned about the capacity of drains and sewerage to take additional waste from further housing. For example, the ongoing development being undertaken at Bee Orchid Way has provided evidence of overflows from that site's drain into the Staithe. This has happened a number of times and was reported both to the Environment Agency and Anglian Water. Householders in Lower Road at the bottom of New Inn Hill have also reported that the nearby pumping station is not always able to deal with current levels of waste disposal and thus on occasion sewage leaks into the nearby beck and into the Staithe.
The extra weight on the road at New Inn Hill caused by the recent increase in lorries needed by the various housing developments caused the road opposite the public house to collapse and fracture the water main. If heavy plant vehicles put a major strain on the road and the utilities' infrastructure beneath then any further increase in traffic following development will have a similar effect over time.
The Parish Council does not consider this site suitable for development

Dangerous access point, no footpath that side of the development and only narrow footpath on opposite side of road. No bus stop. It will create more traffic through the village which has increased already from surrounding villages avoiding A146.

Inadequate access on a hill and bend no vision splay or line of sight. No footpath so forced to cross the road at that dangerous access onto a very narrow footpath which is too small. There is no bus stop. Will create extra traffic through the village which is already under pressure from surrounding villages avoiding the A146.

I would like to object to the housing proposal GNLP2007 in Rockland St Mary for the following reasons:
The Road that runs through Rockland St Mary, The Street, is already very busy due to the increase in traffic from other villages, and was not built to withstand this volume. This increase would create further potholes and disintegration of the quality of the road.
The parking along the street at the present is causing congestion to traffic and has recently contributed towards an RTA. An increase in population would make this worse.
Increased traffic would increase air pollution and noise pollution.
Houses, purchased with a "view" will be devalued.
I disagree with the statement of: "Additional residential development in Rockland St Mary would help to support and sustain the local services and facilities within the village."
I believe this is contradictory to what the housing proposals do.
The infrastructure of the village is not in place to serve an increase in population.
This village is currently undergoing new houses being built at the back of Bee Orchid Way. The heavy Lorries going through have been disruptive and further building would extend this disruption.
Further houses would spoil the feel of Rockland St Mary making it become more like Poringland or the Suburbs.

Objection. Inadequate highway access and no footpath on this side of the road. Impact on landscape of the loss of a high rural land area.

I am making this complaint on behalf of myself and 11 residents of Eel
Catcher Close - who were unable to access the GNLP website due to its
complexity. If you require signatures and personal details of each of the
11 residents please email me and I will provide this immediately.

We are writing to raise serious concern about the proposal.

Rockland St Mary is a village adjacent to Rockland Broad, a Broads
protected area. The proposal would fundamentally damage, erode and alter
the character of the village and Rockland Broad. The proposed
development alter the proportion and current footprint of the village.

In addition, there are other serious concerns about the proposal:

The local infrastructure of Rockland St Mary is not adequate to sustain or support the development.

Although a skeleton bus service operates from the
village to Norwich, it does not operate sufficient services to enable
residents to get to and from work at the hours and with the flexibility
expected by all employers.

Residents of Rockland who are employed out of the village either drive
or cycle to work as a result of this. This is supported by any consultation
with Rockland residents and by monitoring the demographics of bus
passengers. Rockland bus passengers are predominantly elderly and disabled
people, unemployed people and parents with young children.

The existing utilities in Rockland including drainage will not be able
to sustain the development.

The village will not be able to safely sustain the substantial increase
in car traffic that will be incurred by this proposal. Access to and from
the village will be jeopardised. This proposal could bring significant additional vehicles into Rockland St Mary. This would lead to serious
congestion, environmental and safety issues.

Specific safety issues surround any increase in traffic on School Lane.
School Lane is the only means of access to the village school. It is so
narrow that cars cannot pass unless they drive onto the footpath to do so.
There is insufficient space at the bottom of the lane for cars to turn
around. School Lane cannot cope with the increase in school traffic
that the proposal would trigger. Evidence suggests that most parents would
drive their children to school in the morning, not walk to the other end of
the village carrying school bags, lunches and the other requirements that
go with transporting young children to school, especially in inclement
weather.

Public rights of way. There are two footpaths in the area designated for
development which have been used by the public for well over 100 years. One
joins the village with the Community nature reserve at Hellington and
Hellington village. Some time ago, the farmer owning the fields tried to
prohibit residents from using these historic footways. The village united
in challenging this action, and, to avoid the matter going to court, the
farmer relented and temporarily erected signs for permissive footpaths in
recognition of their use. Residents of the village will not hesitate to
challenge any suggestion that these footpaths may be removed. Law assumes
that if the public use a path without interference for some period of time
- set by statute at 20 years - then the owner has intended to dedicate it
as a right of way. There is no doubt that the village would successfully
uphold a legal challenge on this issue.

Residents of Eel Catcher Close are also concerned about the health
implications of building so many houses close to a number of adults and
children with asthma on the Close, due to the levels of dust and debris
that would be generated.